The slave trade made Scotland rich. Now we must pay our blood-soaked debts

[Judi Lynn]

Opinion
The slave trade made Scotland rich. Now we must pay our blood-soaked debts
Stephen McLaren

The Caribbean countries that our forefathers so ruthlessly exploited are asking for financial reparations. Let’s not deepen our shame by refusing them

Friday 13 January 2017 04.00 EST


At the turn of the year, after the giving, receiving and splurging are over, eyes turn wearily to outstanding bills, upcoming liabilities and the settling of accounts. This year, thanks to Brexit, no shortage of final demands and eye-watering bills will be appearing in the nation’s letterbox – and denial will not be an option.

In addition to the £18bn or so that the UK is thought to owe in outstanding EU spending commitments and pensions, there will also be demands marked in the deepest red that can be traced back to our imperial past, and which have been ignored for far too long.

Some 235 years ago last month, 133 African slaves bound for Jamaican sugar plantations were deliberately drowned in the Caribbean by British sailors aboard the slave ship Zong. Chained together at the ankle and weighed down with metal balls, they were cast into the deep so that the ship’s owners could claim compensation for “cargo” lost at sea.

Two weeks ago this event, known as the Zong massacre, was symbolically chosen by the Jamaican government to reassert its claim that the UK should formally apologise and make financial reparations for running a slave colony on the island for two centuries.

More:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/13/slave-trade-slavery-scotland-pay-debts

[guillaumeb]

1. Reparations for the horror of slavery is a very sensitive subject.

The US, the UK, France, all of the countries which profited heavily by the slave trade refuse to consider reparations.

Recommended.

[Igel]

2. For lots of reasons.

In the case of Scotland, it goes like this.

Some individuals profited greatly under colonial rule.

Some of their descendants--but only some--are still wealthy. Along the way, some lost their wealth because of foolishness or just misfortune. Then there's the various depressions and bank panics.

Therefore the current government over the some of descendants of the former imperialists plus a lot of other people must compensate the current government of the former colonials and lots of other people.

Part of the argument is that the imperial government at the time didn't just abolish slavery and trigger a revolt and a lot of political chaos, but instead made the transition from slavery to abolition politically acceptable. In other words, the right people didn't get sufficiently hurt. Since nobody hurt them then, we have to hurt them now.

More than a few of those making the argument call themselves Xians. Yes, a 200-year-old vendetta is what their Jesus would do, I guess. In other instances, the argument is basically, "You did something wrong; you have more money now, and you people have to share for what happened in your country 200 years ago."

In the case of Scotland, though, the extent of the participation is just barely quantified. The profit hasn't been quantified. That should be quantified, otherwise reparations are open-ended. Is 1 pound appropriate? 10 000? 10 million? 10 billion? 10 trillion? How do you pay reparations for the moral failings of a class? "In my considered opinion--produced by a dartboard--X pounds is appropriate, to be paid to the government."

All the things that caused loss of wealth in Scotland over the last 200 years would, of course, have done the same thing to wealth in Jamaica. Which would, of course, have been concentrated in the hands of the few (given the times and mores in the 1700s and 1800s).

Then there's trying to quantify the human life involved. The Middle Passage. Versus staying in situ with the ethnic battles that took place, famines, and the in-country slave trade (the Europeans were but one customer).

(And while we're doing this, how about reparations for the Irish? For the Russians under the Swedes? Maybe the Tatars? Let's not forget the sufferings of the Celts under the Anglo-Saxons. Or the Anglo-Saxons under the French.)

[guillaumeb]

3. Interesting points. I will admit.

In the case of Haiti, reparations were paid until 1947. No ancient history. And the reparations were paid to the French Government. So in that case, it would be a logistically simple matter for the French Government to give back what was negotiated under duress.